Gender Roles: Settling the Debate

Throughout the entirety of my graduation years as a media student, gender roles were vilified. We had subjects devoted to discussing them, as if they were outdated ideas that were regressive to the development of a modern society. And this isn't just limited to the curriculum that is being fed to students, in fact the trend's origination could be traced back to social media platforms, which allow individuals, for the most part, to freely express their opinion. It is still very much active and at it's full potential, stronger than ever. Celebrities and pop icons who are featured prominently in global media, as well as politicians each clinging on to their own ideologies are vocal in their feelings on the subject. Most of them favor the above stated idea. It almost feels as though a virtual competition is staged between both genders, and a constant argument is made to assert the so-called fact that women can do everything that men can and that both are equal. So the obvious question is, are women and men equal?

If equality here refers the amount of significance both genders should hold in the society, without any discrimination or subjugation intended towards any one gender, then yes we are equal. We should strive to be. Society needs strong men and strong women to coexist and secure the present while also planting the seeds of a fruitful future for the next generation. But if the argument is that women are capable of doing everything that men can (on a generalized scale), or if it aims to abolish the age-old paradigm that classifies the capabilities and limitations of both genders, which in turn influences the roles that they have been allotted, then I'm afraid that there might be a disagreement from my end.

The resentment towards gender roles could be blamed on a false understanding of the concept, or a skewed perception of it. People think that gender roles essentially are supposed to imply that a woman isn't supposed to indulge in occupations reserved for men and vice versa. That is absolutely untrue. The aim should always be to encourage a society which does not bar any individual, regardless of gender or race, from pursuing a career, hobby or lifestyle of their choice. But while women are not meant to spend their entire lives in the kitchen, it is important to not see the kitchen as an undignified place. Feeding someone is the most noble thing one can do, and some of the best meals we've had in our lives had originated in the kitchen. And guess what? There was a woman in the kitchen, the one who birthed you. Womanhood is not submitting before men and tying yourself to the kitchen, but that shouldn't overthrow the significance of being able to cook a delicious meal for your family. Similarly, there's no harm if a man decides to wear an apron and try a hand at cooking either. The most renowned chefs in the world, some of whom you see as judges in competitions like Masterchef, are men. While there may be a sizable difference in the male to female ratio of certain professions, this divide should not act as a rule. It's just a mere representation of data. As long as a woman finds herself accustomed to a male-dominated profession and is able to produce equally efficient results, there should be no restrictions in considering her for the job. The key words here are 'able' and 'efficient results.' 

While a minor percentage of manpower in the army does comprise of women, there's a reason they aren't recruited in special forces. That's because, apart from the tremendous level of skillset required, special forces penetrate deep into the enemy terroritory and there are greater risks associated with female soldiers being held captive by the hostile enemy. That doesn't however mean we should disregard the women guarding our national borders. They deserve just as much respect.

Gender stereotypes see men as the providers and women as the nurtures. Does that mean that all women are supposed to pay attention to is the baby in their laps and disregard any ambitions of personal growth in their work life? Absolutely not. For one, she could be a divorced mother who's either in a leadership role at her firm or she works as a waitress at the local cafe to make ends meet. Yes, in both cases, she took it upon their shoulders to be the provider. What about men?  Are they capable of raising a child all by themselves? Try asking that to a single father, who has mastered the art of plaiting his 7 year old daughter's hair. But as beautiful as these exceptional scenarios sound, can we simply rule out the presence of either a mother or a father in a child's life? The presence of each parent is instrumental in reducing the effort needed to create an ideal environment for the child's growth, as long as they are responsibly playing their part. Both a father and a mother may have their own approach towards educating the child, and their teachings may be different. That's what gender roles are about, neither are any less significant but both are essential.

The most obvious difference between the two genders can be seen in their biological composition. Yet, there have been instances that defy the norm, like a woman successfully beating male opponents in an arm wrestling match, some of them being twice her size. How is that possible? One lesser known fact is that arm wrestling is a sport where technique overpowers vigor. The other, this one much known, is that such cases are in exception to what's normally observed. The woman in the above example represents a small sample of the entire female population. A more accurate testament of the wide gap would be when an under-15 boy's football team (F.C Dallas) had beaten The US National Women's Football team by a score of 5-2. The women took the defeat gracefully, and it was a moment that highlighted the spirit of sportsmanship. And that wasn't the only ocassion proving the much obvious. There's a reason why women don't compete with men in sports that are physical. Because if they did, that would be unfair to the women. An average male has higher testosterone, bone density, and other biological factors that give him a drastic edge over women in terms of performance. That however, does not mean we disregard women's sports. This is where equity and not equality comes into play. The divide is necessary to ensure fair competition go hand-in-hand with equal opportunities. There is no law that says men are meant to excel and women are not, but there certainly is one that prohibits a man from being pitted against a woman (although unfortunately, that too has been happening under the garb of transgender rights but that isn't an issue being addressed here). 

Why do we feel the need to bring up the edge that men have over women in this area? Is it to prove that men are superior? No, but to prove that characteristics like these have been embedded in us by nature. And these characteristics influence gender roles. Men on an average may be able to run faster than women do, but should that motivate them to outrun their female companion if they bumped into a mugger? It is because men are better equipped to defend themselves in a dangerous situation, that they are obliged to take the lead and protect women. 

Though let's not forget that regardless of how tough the society is accustomed to seeing men as, ultimately it's women who are destined to go through the tortures of child birth and menstruation. And yet they don't see it as a curse, but as a part of themselves. If giving birth is celebrated, then there's no reason for menstruation to still be seen as a taboo. It's these things that make us men and women, and instead of getting rid of our identities, it's high time we embrace and not erase them. A man being squeezed in the crowd as he's hanging on to his dear life during peak office hours in local trains is a common scenario. Now imagine a woman in that situation. We rule out certain gender specific hardships that make the routinely process more challenging for her. She's probably wearing heels while she's hanging at the edge the door. Worst, she could be on her period and in immense pain and discomfort. But her biggest worry is not messing up the presentation that she's supposed to deliver at office, or the grip of her hand loosening, but the visibility of blood stains on her leggings. And just then, a man takes advantage of the situation to deliberately brush his elbow against her inappropriately. Women are supposed give birth to and raise strong men, and those men in return should create a safe space for them and make them feel comfortable instead of being guilty of such appalling crimes.

The problem emerges out of the mindset that womanhood is a weakness because of the restrictions that society anciently had imposed on women, which may have further given rise to the idea that women are inferior. Yes, society had not granted women the same rights as men, and for years silenced their voices. But that oppression itself is not the definition of being a dutiful woman. Being a woman does not mean that you chain yourself to a patriarchal environment. The fresh breath of liberty should be a privilege for each individual barring any discrimination on the grounds of gender. But if it was accompanied by the qualities of compassion, love, kindness, warmth, loyalty, elegance, and empathy, it'd ultimately be more rewarding for both the woman and those who are a part of her life. These traits should not be perceived as submissive. Savitribai Phule, an Indian social reformer who paved way for women's education, was anything but submissive when she waged a bloodless war on the evils of gender and caste based discriminations. Yet she was a woman by birth and by nature, and it is fair to believe that the previously stated qualities may have reflected in her professional life as a teacher and her personal life as a wife, mother, daughter-in-law and a human being.  After all, in order to take a stand for the oppressed, you must be able to empathize with them. There are countless examples of ideal women hidden in history.

Savitribai Phule would've never been successful in her pursuit of women empowerment had it not been for the support of her husband Jyotirao Phule, who was the ideal man for supporting his wife's cause instead of seeing her mission as a threat to his assertive position in a patriarchal society. Another example of a man standing up for women at a time when they were not allowed to express themselves, would be that of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Known as The Father of Modern India, he eradicated Sati, a practise which saw the wife jump into the fire during her husband's cremation. These examples show that men can be compassionate, empathetic, and capable of offering emotional support. 

If both men and women are able to share the same essential traits, why should there be a distinction? I can recall 2 distinct memories that allowed me to notice the nuances in the way men and women adapt to sensitive situations. When I was down with viral encephalitis at the age of 13, I had my teacher pay me a visit at the hospital. She didn't have to, yet she chose to feed me the soup which had been lying on the table, despite knowing how intensely I disliked it. The soup may have been warm, but warmer was her gesture which made me tolerate the bitter taste. I'll always fondly remember that memory. Fast forward at 19 when I was undergoing a surgery and was in immense pain, I asked the nurse (who happened to be a male) to offer me his hand. I clutched on to it tightly with a look of grimace, as I was injected with anesthesia. Believe me, having a female figure support me through the unbearable pain wouldn't have quite been the same as having a male one. I was vulnerable yet I felt safe and protected, without being conscious of expressing myself or getting touchy. That's just the impact a man's presence can have on not just women, but another man too. What I can tell you is that although both interactions evoked different feelings in me, they were both necessary. 

The idea of masculinity has been vastly misunderstood and now is being seen as a threat. Whereas in reality, what makes a man are the qualities of protecting those around him and providing for his loved ones. A man is expected to selflessly offer, and that is the exact reason why in case of a hostage rescue, it's the women and children that are on the priority list of being evacuated. Same can be said in case of an emergency fire. It is not okay to discredit men and see them as an embodiment of evil. If we ever want to recognize the contribution of men in today's world, all we need to do is take a look around. Men have constructed the buildings that you see, and they have cleaned the sewers that aren't within your sight. The workers who operated machinery and slaved off during the Industrial Revolution were mostly men, and so were the ones who blew to their deaths while working in mines. The greatest leaders in history, be it Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln, were men. 

It could be argued that women weren't provided the same opportunities that would have allowed them to carve a legacy, and it is a fair argument. Yet, despite our women being deprived in the past, some chose to break through the barriers and ultimately leave a lasting impact. The way in which media has depicted the wit and might of Cleopatra is not too different from how it has hyped the feats of Alexander The Great. Blackbeard may have been the most feared pirate during the Golden Age, yet it was Zheng Yi Sao, the Chinese Pirate Queen whose fleet was invincible. The intention is to not condone their means of bread and butter, so it's best to keep morality at bay when discussing their accomplishments. The platform that we have been able to create for women today is an achievement, and a giant leap in the history of mankind.

So what are gender roles? There's a broad definition to what they are, and even a thick book might not succeed in conveying a clear idea of them. Should they be abolished? Think about it. As a woman, does the idea of a man opening the door for you, or carrying you down the aisle in his arms bother you? Would you like it if you were in danger and he prioritized his own safety before yours? If not, then maybe, they aren't as bad as the media wants you to believe. Gender roles need not be eradicated, but the faults lurking around it's broad definition surely should be. That is the way forward. We need to learn from history and eliminate the wrong. 

Albert Einstein and his first wife Mileva, were both very intelligent human beings. And that's not only because the former was a renowned physicist and the latter an able mathematician. His wife is believed to have assisted him in his work. While the extent of her contribution remains unknown, it is evident that they were too intelligent to compete. The broad line that separates wisdom from ignorance is the realization that we are meant to coexist and compliment each other, not to compete with each other.  Instead of women looking to fill into the shoes of the former, what the world needs is both sides working together to preserve the future. The media and educational institutions are trying to erase the identity of men and women.  We must not eradicate truths and facts associated to both genders, rather teach our children to be better men and women when they grow up. Women trying to be men is not a sign of a progressive society. A progressive society is one in which a man and a woman work together, embracing their uniqueness while also appreciating and taking cognizance of the other's significance, and ultimately conquering their objectives through consistent support.